Barn Burner: The Boys are Back!! (Boomer, Pinder & Warrener)

[Burning Beard]

So happy these dudes are back.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I am enjoying the show as well. I don’t know if it’s a rights issue, but hopefully they can get some more audio drops/ music to liven things up a bit. The Pinder report isn’t the same without the sound effects.

[Jay Random]

Definitely a rights issue. I've heard Steinberg on Flames Talk explain that some of the audio clips are for broadcast only, because they couldn't buy the rights to include them in the podcast.

Sound recordings are generally available to any radio station that wants them and is able to pay the appropriate fee. I don't think there is any equivalent system for podcasts, so rights have to be negotiated with individual copyright holders. That would get messy fast, and of course the rights holder can simply say no.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

given that you tubers can use 5-10 second clips of Disney shows in their reviews I see no reason why the guys couldnt use even shorter sound bytes for their show . I don't think it counts as replicating a broadcast

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

given that you tubers can use 5-10 second clips of Disney shows in their reviews I see no reason why the guys couldnt use even shorter sound bytes for their show . I don't think it counts as replicating a broadcast

That's because Disney chooses to allow that use. (And that, I suspect, is because YouTube is owned by Google, and not even The Mouse can afford to piss off the world's biggest search engine.)

Every rights holder has its own policy about podcasts, and I believe you have to negotiate with each one individually. With radio, the rights fees are standardized and SOCAN doesn't say no. Every station's money is good enough for them.

You learn about some funny things in my trade. Publishers warn authors never, never, never to quote copyrighted song lyrics in a book, because the same situation arises. You have to negotiate directly with the copyright holder, and they have a habit of demanding more money than the entire book will ever earn. I don't suppose they are much friendlier to podcasters than they are to writers.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's because Disney chooses to allow that use. (And that, I suspect, is because YouTube is owned by Google, and not even The Mouse can afford to piss off the world's biggest search engine.)

Every rights holder has its own policy about podcasts, and I believe you have to negotiate with each one individually. With radio, the rights fees are standardized and SOCAN doesn't say no. Every station's money is good enough for them.

You learn about some funny things in my trade. Publishers warn authors never, never, never to quote copyrighted song lyrics in a book, because the same situation arises. You have to negotiate directly with the copyright holder, and they have a habit of demanding more money than the entire book will ever earn. I don't suppose they are much friendlier to podcasters than they are to writers.

well that sounds exhausting ...

also thanks for the insight

[The Fisher Account]

I get that it’s part of the schtick, but Rhett being disinterested and preoccupied EVERY show is getting old

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's because Disney chooses to allow that use. (And that, I suspect, is because YouTube is owned by Google, and not even The Mouse can afford to piss off the world's biggest search engine.)

Every rights holder has its own policy about podcasts, and I believe you have to negotiate with each one individually. With radio, the rights fees are standardized and SOCAN doesn't say no. Every station's money is good enough for them.

You learn about some funny things in my trade. Publishers warn authors never, never, never to quote copyrighted song lyrics in a book, because the same situation arises. You have to negotiate directly with the copyright holder, and they have a habit of demanding more money than the entire book will ever earn. I don't suppose they are much friendlier to podcasters than they are to writers.

Not entirely accurate. Fair use doctrine does allow for the use of limited portions of a song, book, or performance "for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports." Making this even more murky is "there are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work." So yes, you can use short snippets of a song, lift a lyric from a song, or use a snippet from another broadcast for commentary or criticism. You may NOT use another's content in its entirety without written permission.

Cool fact not many people know. The soundtrack for a movie is one of the most expensive parts of the production. Licensing each song is very expensive and can pile up once production has completed. For example, the production company of Varsity Blues paid $500,000 to license AC/DC's Thunderstruck. This was a record at the time, but I'm sure there are more costly ventures out there now. The bigger the hit and the more recent the song, the more expensive it is to license the material. You can imagine the cost of a jukebox production like Rock of Ages where they use a catalogue of hits for the stage/movie.

[bucksmasher]

So glad to have these guys back in my life! If you don't like the Pinder report without canned noise or you don't like Rhett being himself just turn it off! Try listening to the fan for a few minutes....

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Not entirely accurate. Fair use doctrine does allow for the use of limited portions of a song, book, or performance "for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports." Making this even more murky is "there are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work." So yes, you can use short snippets of a song, lift a lyric from a song, or use a snippet from another broadcast for commentary or criticism. You may NOT use another's content in its entirety without written permission.

Cool fact not many people know. The soundtrack for a movie is one of the most expensive parts of the production. Licensing each song is very expensive and can pile up once production has completed. For example, the production company of Varsity Blues paid $500,000 to license AC/DC's Thunderstruck. This was a record at the time, but I'm sure there are more costly ventures out there now. The bigger the hit and the more recent the song, the more expensive it is to license the material. You can imagine the cost of a jukebox production like Rock of Ages where they use a catalogue of hits for the stage/movie.

Stephen King used to start chapters of some of his books with song lyrics - just a line or two. Now maybe they just gave him permission but I bet he didn’t pay. And this was when he was relatively new.

We used to do a Christmas musical video. The fee was about $5K to use a copyrighted song and even then we had to take down the video within a couple months IIRC.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Not entirely accurate. Fair use doctrine does allow for the use of limited portions of a song, book, or performance "for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports." Making this even more murky is "there are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work." So yes, you can use short snippets of a song, lift a lyric from a song, or use a snippet from another broadcast for commentary or criticism. You may NOT use another's content in its entirety without written permission

However, using music on the soundtrack of a podcast that is not about music does NOT count as ‘commentary, criticism news reporting, [or] scholarly reports’. So fair use doctrine does not apply in such instances, and you have to license the recording from the rights holder. In cases such as this, it's a rights holder who does not want to sell you that licence unless you pay through the nose.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Stephen King used to start chapters of some of his books with song lyrics - just a line or two. Now maybe they just gave him permission but I bet he didn’t pay. And this was when he was relatively new.

Stephen King's first book was a massive bestseller: the paperback sold a million copies in the first 12 months after release. After that, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted and his publisher would sort out the legalities.

We used to do a Christmas musical video. The fee was about $5K to use a copyrighted song and even then we had to take down the video within a couple months IIRC.

Yup. Now, consider that the average author makes less than $5K in royalties on the average book, and the same with the average podcast. It would be financial suicide to license music or lyrics on those terms.

[Northendzone]

to me it is kind of weird being able to hear them and see them

[rayne008]

Really enjoying the podcast / youtube live stream.

It's interesting, I'm more inclined to visit a sponsor of the podcast now then before.
Although hopefully they can find a balance that is not too commercialized.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

However, using music on the soundtrack of a podcast that is not about music does NOT count as ‘commentary, criticism news reporting, [or] scholarly reports’. So fair use doctrine does not apply in such instances, and you have to license the recording from the rights holder. In cases such as this, it's a rights holder who does not want to sell you that licence unless you pay through the nose.

Wasn't aware that was up for discussion. Seems like movement of the goal posts. Repetitive use of a snippet, like in a show theme, does indeed require licensing, but single use is pretty much accepted as fair use, with the exception of some of the really hard assed publishers. Most see it as an opportunity to draw attention to their product and generate sales/plays.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

I get that it’s part of the schtick, but Rhett being disinterested and preoccupied EVERY show is getting old

It’s not a schtick

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

I get that it’s part of the schtick, but Rhett being disinterested and preoccupied EVERY show is getting old

pretty obviously not a fan of the team or has much investment in the flames affairs either .. he's just shooting the **** with his friends

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Wasn't aware that was up for discussion.

If you can hear it on the podcast, it's part of the soundtrack. Of course that was up for discussion.

[GioforPM]

A little research tells me King pays for lyrics he uses as epigraphs and if he doesn’t like the fee, he changes the song.

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Cool fact not many people know. The soundtrack for a movie is one of the most expensive parts of the production. Licensing each song is very expensive and can pile up once production has completed. For example, the production company of Varsity Blues paid $500,000 to license AC/DC's Thunderstruck. This was a record at the time, but I'm sure there are more costly ventures out there now. The bigger the hit and the more recent the song, the more expensive it is to license the material. You can imagine the cost of a jukebox production like Rock of Ages where they use a catalogue of hits for the stage/movie.

The movie Yesterday paid 10 million to use 20 Beatles songs. More than any one actor got paid in that movie.